They couldn’t stop Andrew Breitbart’s message from being heard before and they won’t stop it now… but that doesn’t mean they won’t try.

And try they are. The Washington Post recently published a “review” of the film Hating Breitbart. Review is in quotations because it was a clumsy and banal attack on the man himself not a movie review. Truth be told, those who appreciated Andrew and understood what he fought against wouldn’t expect any kind of journalistic integrity from the very people that he spent a career exposing for the biased agenda driven tools of the institutionalized left that they are.

What is surprising is the lengths that outlets like the Washington Post will go to stop the voices of the everyman, average citizens, and the very people Andrew fought for so hard to be heard. But that is preciously what they have done.

Within hours of the biased review, average movie-goers did what WaPo apparently falsely offers as an opportunity to be heard and 7 citizen reviews were posted. In theory, viewer generated reviews provide a balance to what could be a biased or unprofessional official review written with an axe to grind.

But this morning, those positive reviews were nowhere to be found. They were flushed down the WaPo memory hole!

Here’s a screen grab of the website with the positive reviews:

And, here’s a screen grab after the Washington Post removed all of the positive reviews.

A citizen warrior, the type of person that Andrew respected and honored above all else, noticed the problem. She contacted the Post and was told the “problem” was fixed at 11:14 am. When Director Andrew Marcus contacted the Post to try to figure out what happened, he was told it was a “technical glitch” and that “Somehow, our feed ended up erasing those showtimes and when I went in to fix it today, it seems the reader reviews got inadvertently lost.” They still have not provided a response to whether or not any other movie reviews experienced this “glitch”.

Clearly, the Washington Post is not only comfortable Hating Breitbart, they are equally comfortable hating their readers and those who do not tow the liberal line. As one citizen reviewer wrote, after WaPo’s confusing and hard to believe glitch excuses on why reader reviews were scrubbed, “That in itself is an indictment of the system that Brietbart so justly attacked while he was alive.”

* * * * *

HATING BREITBART – Feature-length Documentary Captures the Final Days of Controversial New Media Pioneer, Andrew Breitbart;

Hating Breitbart opened well for a political documentary, earning more than $10,000 per screen in four markets. Marcus said Rocky Mountain Pictures will extend the release to more battleground states – where President Barack Obama and Gov. Mitt Romney are running neck-and-neck — beginning Nov. 2 to take advantage of the political climate surrounding the Nov. 6 presidential election.

What did you expect ?…… “Welcome, sonny”, that was a nice movie ?…… “Make yourself at home” and tell us about Andrew ?…… “Marry my daughter” ?…… You’ve got to remember that these are just simple Democrats…… These are people of the elite who know better than us…… The common clay of the new one-world government…… You know…… Totalitarian Jihadist morons.

Sam Stone

There are 9 reviews now all positive. You must have hit a snag in the site.

Oliver

After Romney wins, I think the country really needs to have a serious dialogue about the media “situation” and how to resolve it. Tonight O’Reilly did a list of the top MSM anchors /hosts and there was not ONE conservative on the list.

These liberal media types think that conservatives are un-American when it is they who are trying to change America into something that it is not and has never been.

What they report, and especially what they don’t report, presents a picture that is so distorted, that they don’t deserve any consideration of being impartial or objective.

That they are trying to change America so is subversive, and they should be called to account for it.

rrpjr

Some of the reviews, plus new ones (including mine), are back. Let’s see if they scrub these.

Multitude

Preference cascade is going to sweep over the WaPo like the Japanese tsunami did over the fishing villages. Those who are rational enough to realize the progressive myth is imploding are fleeing for higher ground. The WaPo shoots those in the back that dare flee, and puts up posters proclaiming everything is save.

Unlike the Japanese disaster, however, those who drown will not be victims. Their fate is commanded by history: those who lie and sustain tyrannies and violence will not find anyone to fish them out when the waters roar in.

It’s “toe” the line. As in old-timey boxing after a knockdown. A line was scratched in the dirt or sand and the fighters were told to “Toe the line” on opposite sides before the fight would resume. This is also where the phrase “Start from scratch” came from. You’re welcome.

In ‘2016,’ Obama is fear itself
By Michael O’Sullivan
Friday, August 24, 2012

“I’m not trying to bash Obama in a crude way,” Dinesh D’Souza says in a TV news clip featured in the conservative writer and commentator’s new documentary “2016: Obama’s America.” It’s a comment recycled from one of D’Souza’s many media appearances in defense of his well-known, earlier attacks on the president, both in a controversial 2010 Forbes magazine cover story and two subsequent books, on which this film is based.

One thing can be said for “2016.” It’s anything but crude. The best infomercials rarely are.

I know we are keeping the ocean back with a broom, but “tow the line” is something I keep seeing over and over on the Net, probably because it makes a certain amount of sense. But it is quite incorrect. To “toe the line”is, I heard originally and Wiki reconfirms, of military origin, and it means to have a crew or unit line up synchronously on an actual line, toes to the line, all acting in unison and under common orders. Thus they are “toeing the line”. I have to think the boxing usage came later.

I know, I know, I might as well give it up as grammar/idiom cop, but I’ll still fight the good fight. (And what the hell is up with a “lede” in a news story? The “lead” is exactly that, the para which “leads” the story, and sets up everything to follow. What the hell is a “lede”?? To quote US Marshall Sam Gerard (Tommy Lee Jones), “I don’t want you guys using words around me that have no meaning.”

In this sense, I have much in common with many an Obama voter – I know it’s a hopeless cause, but I gotta fight the fight anyway. 🙂

There may be scum lower than the American media, but not by much. Given the chance, which they & Obama may yet have, they might still espouse the force that now lurks just uner the thin shell of their surface.

owl

WaPo proved themselves over and over during the 2000’s and I list them right below NYT.

Sorry Jim, I quit being surprised at WaPo long ago. They outed our black sites. Look at their top…………….Watergate Super Snooper Poop Scoopers.

Woodward has put himself out there several times lately to wipe up after Obama. The last one I read was the whopper Obama told about the cuts to the military not coming from him. Woodward wrote an article that said yes, it came from O’s team and was taken to Reid. Then he went out of his way to say it was complex and they might not have told Obama………..blah, blah, blah.

Notice a pattern? Obama NEVER knows. Obama is NOT to blame about things he does not know. The Professional Poop Scooper.

DMG

“But that is preciously what they have done.”

How precious!

valerie

#25 October 25, 2012 at 10:04 am
owl commented:

….. Then he went out of his way to say it was complex and they might not have told Obama………..blah, blah, blah.

I thought that line in that article was devastating.

The President of the United States is unaware of the process over which he presides? Unaware of his office’s input into the budget process??? Dear Lord, if someone had said that about Bill Clinton, or either of the Georges Bush, it would have been the daily topic of conversation all over the media for a week. So, what was he doing while his subordinates argued about the various options? Did he just choose not to attend the meetings? If so, that would explain why the empty chair analogy by Clint Eastwood struck such a nerve.

Of course, I’m also one of those people who thinks the US Attorney General is supposed to read his memos.

MEDIA MALPRACTICE – WaPo Scrubs Positive “Hating Breitbart” Reviews From Website
The INTOLERANT lunatic-left simply can’t handle dissent (or THE TRUTH, or THE FACTS or REALITY) from their rigid ideological extremism – just like Adolf’s National Socialists. At least two or three time every week, my comments are deleted and my comment accounts closed at the corrupt, biased socialist MSM sites – which I take to mean that my comments are right-on and potentially too effective for these slimebags to allow others to see. But they can’t stop me from getting out my rational, conservative, pro-American views.

AuntieMadder

WaPo is still Hating Breitbart.

Brian Kern

Last night I had the wonderful opportunity to escape the humdrum life of a domestic engineer and part-time book cover and website designer, in order to sit down and see “Hating Breitbart”. Despite calling myself a conservative and a member of the Dallas Tea Party, I’m not terribly active. My “Don’t Tread On Me Flag” has been careful stowed away and while I speak up on the forums or Facebook, I’m not one for marches and rallies. Being the stay-at-home dad of four children, only one of which is old enough to take care of herself, I don’t have much opportunity to get out there and agitate for change. Mostly I sit behind a computer, read opinion pieces, and try to comprehend the facts behind the news reported by the main stream media. Even more astonishing, I’m not a regular visitor to Breitbart.com, or any of the other websites that Andrew Breitbart established as part of his “war” against the left.

But I will be soon.

“Hating Breitbart” is the biographical documentary that chronicles the major stories Andrew Breitbart broke to America and the passion, force, and courage he displayed while doing so. You’re probably familiar with most if not all of them. First were James O’Keefe’s videos of Acorn employees helping a “pimp” to evade taxes and set up an underage brothel. Later, Breitbart defended the Tea Party, accused by Andre Carson and John Lewis, two members of Congress, of shouting the “n” word at a rally in what eventually proved to be a manufactured lie to discredit the Tea Party. Later Breitbart came under fire for his video of Shirley Sherrod, even though his original story and point were ignored by the media in order to denigrate and marginalize him. It was Breitbart who broke the story of Democrat Anthony Weiner’s online sexual conduct, so unbecoming of a US Congressman. And so the name Andrew Breitbart should be familiar to almost anyone who watches the news. The left revile him; the right place him upon a pedestal.

In general, I’m not a fan of “preaching to the choir” stories, and I’m about as hard-core conservative as they come. I was expressing “tea party” views long before Barack Obama became president, even if we weren’t calling it that. But the movie “Hating Breitbart” showed a man who went far beyond the arm-chair opposition that so many of us engage in. We’ve been called the “silent majority,” but Breitbart was anything but silent. He was an agitator. He wasn’t content to merely roll his eyes at the liberal falsehoods that so perpetrate the news media and the Democratic Party. He didn’t tune them out, turn on Fox News and hope for the best. He went after them, exposing them, confronting them, his own honor and courage, the very moral fortitude of “righteous indignation” giving him a strength and power that not many of us possess. Breitbart not only understood how the left worked, but how they thought. He understood the strategies and villainy that so pervades the new Democratic Party – the party that millions of decent Democratic Americans have no idea has been hijacked by socialists and far left ideologues. And what did Breitbart do about it? Everything he could.

I came out of “Hating Breitbart” with just two things on my mind. The first was that the conservative movement lost one of the great generals of our cause when Andrew Breitbart died on March 1st, 2012. His impetus, his forceful personality, his ability to confront the lies, totally unconcerned about what the left leaning press would do to his name, or how he would be vilified, standing in front of God and everyone, shouting at the top of his lungs, the very truth that he knew, is something to not only marvel at, but emulate. In one of his speeches, he speaks of a new network – one created by us. The New Media he called it. And he challenged us to go out, video tape, ask questions, object, promote, and stand up for what we believe in with righteous indignation.

The second thing that crossed my mind when I left the theatre is that I can no longer sit behind my desk, typing away, and expect things to change. We need more men and women like Andrew Breitbart. We need people who are willing to get up, to agitate, to stand for their beliefs. His legacy shouldn’t merely be a Wikipedia page, a few websites that serve the conservative cause, and the horrible commentary of the liberal left. It should be us, filled with righteous indignation, stepping up in his place, ready to take on the left, their allies in the main stream media, and the Democratic Party itself.

If you haven’t seen “Hating Breitbart” yet, you need to go see it. I suspect that it will move you as much as it moved me. And if you happen to see a fortyish, balding, slightly overweight guy, wearing an American Flag shirt, with two little girls and a bouncing baby boy, all waving flags at the next rally, come on over and say “hi.”